Taxpayers waste of money

[NewsJunky]

I thought I heard something about him doing it this week but I could be wrong. I think that is something I picked up from Peach Pundit after Phil Kent made the error of saying they had been released already. He said that on the Georgia Gang last Sunday. Of course he was very mistaken.

 

 

Jim Galloway at the AJC is reporting that Deal's tax returns were released yesterday and are online for anyone to view. Almost 30 years worth.

[feelip]

Jim Galloway at the AJC is reporting that Deal's tax returns were released yesterday and are online for anyone to view. Almost 30 years worth.

 

 

Seems as though they were missing a lot of pertinent information.

 

I would have sworn that Deal said just last week that the reason he was not releasing his tax information was because he wasn't going to let Roy run his campaign. Is this yet another lie or is Nathan about to change his name to flip-flop?

 

Deal was going to reimburse the state for his security detail / then he wasn't.

 

Deal was not going to release his tax info / then he did (somewhat).

 

If we can't believe him now, just what makes you think we can believe him after the election? WE CAN'T!

[NewsJunky]

Seems as though they were missing a lot of pertinent information.

 

I would have sworn that Deal said just last week that the reason he was not releasing his tax information was because he wasn't going to let Roy run his campaign. Is this yet another lie or is Nathan about to change his name to flip-flop?

 

Deal was going to reimburse the state for his security detail / then he wasn't.

 

Deal was not going to release his tax info / then he did (somewhat).

 

If we can't believe him now, just what makes you think we can believe him after the election? WE CAN'T!

 

 

You are not allowed to release any info on OTHER folks as far as their tax returns may be concerned. He could not BY LAW release any that revealed info on others. My last comment on this issue. Very busy right now. See Ya!!

[lotstodo]

PolitiFact is a joke of an organization. As with most other journalistic orgs, they exist for profit, and therefore like to exaggerate sometimes. They just search for statements to refute, and half the time don't even refute the statement itself.

Politifact Georgia is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Atlanta Journal Constitution editorial board, and as such is not exactly a right wing fascist zombie propaganda machine of the RNC. I rather imagine it pained them to publish this. You're darn right that they are biased, and I dare you to find any believable person to say that they are biased toward conservative candidates.

 

I suppose that you think that Roy can give all the teachers raises by scraping the gold off of the dome? Do you believe that the Democratic President of the United States didn't invite the Democratic Candidate for Governor to any of the political functions? Really? Doesn't exactly take an astute observer to refute either of those statements. Look, the point is that it's all partisan electioneering Bull Cr@p. Your guy does it and Deal does it, so don't get your panties all in a wad by shooting the messenger when that fact is pointed out, particularly when it is pointed out by an organization that is by all accounts on your side.

[gpatt0n]

You are not allowed to release any info on OTHER folks as far as their tax returns may be concerned. He could not BY LAW release any that revealed info on others. My last comment on this issue. Very busy right now. See Ya!!

 

NewsJunky:

 

While my business records may have data on employees that might compromise their privacy, the information provided to the tax man on a typical return is cumulative and does not state the actual individual or their earnings except on the W-2 or 1099 form. Those documents are not part of a tax return. About the only listing that may even qualify in the release of records that would be illegal to release (because of privacy) would involve how or if he paid for a housekeeper, maid or someother domestic worker. That could have been fixed easily with redaction and most folks would understand and respect that individuals privacy.

 

The point is that he resisted for month releasing the information about his tax records and chose to do so only because page one of the 1040 does not provide enough detail to answer the key ethical question.

 

That issue, as I understand it, is confusion over his role as a principal and officer of his auto recycling business and his simultaneously declared declaration in the congressional ethics reporting process as a passive owner/stockholder/investor of the business.

 

Among other things, I believe there is a direct bar against being a congressman and a principal for a private company while serving in Congress. The reality is that confusion of those roles also have tax implications as well as the ethical implications already noted. That was at the core of the issue that was investigated by the House Ethics committee in Congress.

 

The release of the full tax returns; particular the schedule C, would likely clarify whether Mr. Deal was having his cake and eating it too, so to speak. Indeed, the release if more complete, may present evidence in such a way as to raise more serious questions. I fully expect the issue to be explored in greater depth before November.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

NewsJunky:

 

While my business records may have data on employees that might compromise their privacy, the information provided to the tax man on a typical return is cumulative and does not state the actual individual or their earnings except on the W-2 or 1099 form. Those documents are not part of a tax return. About the only listing that may even qualify in the release of records that would be illegal to release (because of privacy) would involve how or if he paid for a housekeeper, maid or someother domestic worker. That could have been fixed easily with redaction and most folks would understand and respect that individuals privacy.

 

The point is that he resisted for month releasing the information about his tax records and chose to do so only because page one of the 1040 does not provide enough detail to answer the key ethical question.

 

That issue, as I understand it, is confusion over his role as a principal and officer of his auto recycling business and his simultaneously declared declaration in the congressional ethics reporting process as a passive owner/stockholder/investor of the business.

 

Among other things, I believe there is a direct bar against being a congressman and a principal for a private company while serving in Congress. The reality is that confusion of those roles also have tax implications as well as the ethical implications already noted. That was at the core of the issue that was investigated by the House Ethics committee in Congress.

 

The release of the full tax returns; particular the schedule C, would likely clarify whether Mr. Deal was having his cake and eating it too, so to speak. Indeed, the release if more complete, may present evidence in such a way as to raise more serious questions. I fully expect the issue to be explored in greater depth before November.

 

pubby

 

I haven't heard anything about a direct rule against it. I guess if there is one it will be discussed to death on the blogs. I do know that if he had a partner in the business his returns would be tied to the partner's. At least that is what I think I heard the experts say. I of course am not an expert in tax law. It would be a violation of their privacy to release records that also belong to them.

[feelip]

You are not allowed to release any info on OTHER folks as far as their tax returns may be concerned. He could not BY LAW release any that revealed info on others. My last comment on this issue. Very busy right now. See Ya!!

 

 

ME TOO! Nathan Deal is a liar, not a governor. See ya!